Implementing the

Paris Agreement
LDC gaps and needs in greenhouse
gas inventory reporting
Anna Schulz, Fernanda Alcobé and Gebru Jember Endalew

Issue Paper Climate change

Keywords:
May 2021 Capacity building, Least Developed Countries (LDCs),
Paris Agreement, transparency, United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
About the authors Partner organisation
Anna Schulz is a principal researcher in IIED’s Climate Change The Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) is a treaty-based
Group. international, inter-governmental organisation dedicated to
supporting and promoting strong, inclusive, and sustainable
Fernanda Alcobé is a researcher in IIED’s Climate Change
economic growth in alignment with SDGs and NDCs in
Group. Contact: fernanda.alcobe@iied.org
developing countries and emerging economies. GGGI currently
Gebru Jember Endalew is the regional lead on Measurement, has 39 members and operations in more than 40 countries.
Reporting and Verification, Climate Diplomacy and Institutional (www.gggi.org)
Strengthening at GGGI’s Regional Office for Africa and Europe.
Acknowledgements
Produced by IIED’s Climate Change The authors would like to thank Brianna Craft, Illari Aragon,
group Tshewang Dorji and Clare Shakya for their comments and
inputs during the review process. Thank you also to Lucy
The Climate Change Group works with partners to help
Southwood, Jérémy Davis, Laura Jenks and Judith Fisher for
secure fair and equitable solutions to climate change by
providing editing, proofreading and design support. We are
combining appropriate support for adaptation by the poor in
pleased to acknowledge GGGI for supporting the research
low- and middle-income countries, with ambitious and practical
work for this piece conducted by Anna Schulz during her
mitigation targets. The work of the Climate Change Group
remit there.
focuses on achieving the following objectives:
This publication has been reviewed according to IIED’s
• Supporting public planning processes in delivering climate
peer review policy, which sets out a rigorous, documented
resilient development outcomes for the poorest
and accountable process. The reviewers were Tshewang
• Supporting climate change negotiators from poor and Dorji, former policy analyst at Climate Analytics, and Illari
vulnerable countries for equitable, balanced and multilateral Aragon, researcher at IIED. For further information, see
solutions to climate change www.iied.org/research-excellence-impact
• Building capacity to act on the implications of changing
ecology and economics for equitable and climate-resilient
development in the drylands.

Published by IIED, May 2021

Schulz, A, Alcobé, F and Endalew, G J (2021) Implementing
the Paris Agreement: LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory
reporting. IIED, London.
http://pubs.iied.org/10212IIED
ISBN 978-1-78431-882-6
Cover photo: Bonn Climate Change Conference, June 2019.
After a week-long heatwave across Europe, SBSTA Chair Paul
Watkinson, France, closes the SBSTA plenary with the same
image that he showed at the opening plenary: the Keeling
Curve, a graph of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the
Earth’s atmosphere. (Credit: IISD/ENB Kiara Worth)
Printed on recycled paper with vegetable-based inks.
International Institute for Environment and Development
235 High Holborn, Holborn, London WC1V 7DN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
www.iied.org
@iied
www.facebook.com/theIIED
Download more publications at http://pubs.iied.org
IIED is a charity registered in England, Charity No.800066
and in Scotland, OSCR Reg No.SC039864 and a company
limited by guarantee registered in England No.2188452.
 IIED Issue paper

From 2024, all countries will face more stringent

reporting requirements on their climate action under
the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency
Framework (ETF). For developing countries — and the
Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in particular — it is
a big step up from existing arrangements. This paper
analyses over 20 years of LDC reports to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
to understand their current capacity constraints
and needs for greenhouse gas inventory reporting,
which becomes mandatory under the ETF. It provides
recommendations to build in-country capacity,
change reporting dynamics and help LDCs shift
from a ‘fly-in, fly-out’ consultant model to a nationally-
owned institutionalised process.

Contents
Summary4 3.2  Strengthening governance systems 22
3.3  Overcoming technical challenges  22
1 Introduction  7 3.4  Access to finance  23
1.1  Evolution of transparency arrangements 8
1.2  Requirements and flexibilities  9 4 Looking forward  24
1.3  Scope and methodology  11 4.1  Recommendations for UNFCCC bodies and
financial mechanisms 25
2 LDC transparency reporting: state of play 12 4.2  Recommendations for LDCs 25
2.1  Classifying self-identified capacity gaps
and needs 13 Acronyms26
2.2  Understanding capacity gaps 15
Related reading 27
2.3  Understanding capacity needs  17
Notes and references 28
3 Enhancing LDC reporting: preparing for
the ETF 20
3.1  Understanding the relationship between
gaps and needs  21

www.iied.org  3
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Summary
With the first reports under the Enhanced Transparency • They play a crucial policy role, providing information
Framework (ETF) due in 2024, all countries are to assess the effectiveness of mitigation policies
preparing to meet the new and more stringent biennial and measures at national and global levels and for
reporting requirements. This is particularly challenging modelling future emissions, making them a key input
for developing countries, and the world’s Least of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and
Developed Countries (LDCs) will need continuous and long-term planning, and
sustained capacity building support in this process.
• Understanding current reporting constraints and
needs provides a basis for assessing LDC capacity
Box 1. What is the ETF? needs for reporting under ETF modalities and
guidelines and for informing capacity building plans
The ETF is a transparency mechanism for reporting and programmes.
countries’ progress on mitigation and adaptation
actions, and support provided and/or received.
The information countries present under the ETF
An overview of LDC
will feed into the Global Stocktake, the mechanism transparency reporting
developed to assess collective progress towards
achieving the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals. By March 2020, all 47 LDCs1 had submitted their first
Full implementation of the ETF is key to enhancing national communication (NC), 40 their second, 14 their
national and global ambition, and to operationalising third and one its fourth. Only six had submitted their first
and bringing credibility to the Paris Agreement. biennial update report (BUR). LDC reporting has been
much less frequent than the recommended four- and
two-year intervals. The average time lapse between
The Paris Agreement recommends that capacity
the first and second NCs was ten years. Those that
building actions be country-driven, based on national
have submitted three NCs closed the gap between the
needs and guided by lessons learned during the United
second and third submission to seven years on average.
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Forty countries submitted their first NC between 1997
(UNFCCC) reporting process. This paper uses a
and 2007; the other seven, between 2012 and 2020.
comparative analysis of information from national reports
to the UNFCCC to understand LDCs’ current capacity
constraints and needs for reporting their greenhouse
Capacity gaps
gas (GHG) inventories, one of three mandatory To compare quantitative information between countries
reporting elements of the ETF. It also aims to inform and reports, we divided capacity gaps into five
the development of capacity building initiatives to help clusters: lack of data, data quality, data management,
LDCs implement the ETF. methodological issues and institutional issues. We
found that LDCs faced multiple capacity constraints
Methodology across all of these. As well as struggling to obtain
the quantity and quality of data required, many LDCs
Analysing more than 20 years of LDC transparency reported a lack of or informal institutional arrangements
reports under the UNFCCC, we collected their self- and data management systems, making it difficult to
identified capacity gaps, constraints and needs in coordinate, gather and process data across multiple
reporting their GHG inventories. We focused on GHG agencies, and therefore estimate all the relevant
inventories because: inventory categories. When available, data were often
contradictory, uncertain, not for public use, or lacked
• They are a reporting requirement for all mandatory
the level of disaggregation necessary to prepare a
reports under the ETF
complete and accurate GHG inventory. Technical
• All Parties use the same methodological framework to difficulties included a lack of expertise to understand the
create their inventories, facilitating comparisons and guidelines, use the software, or develop country-specific
allowing us to assess progress and needs emission factors that would reduce uncertainty and
increase the accuracy of national GHG inventories.

4 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Figure 1. Evolving transparency arrangements in the UNFCCC reporting process

1992 Parties sign the UNFCCC, committing to report on adaptation

and mitigation through NCs
Flexible timing for LDCs to submit at
developing countries their discretion

First NCs from developing countries due and second round of

1997
NCs from developed countries
Developed countries submit second round Developing countries do not submit
of annual national inventory reports separate inventory reports

2010 All countries to submit NCs every four years

Developed countries also submit Developing countries

biennial report (BR) also submit BUR

2015 Parties sign the Paris Agreement and establish the ETF, applicable to all countries

2018 Parties adopt the modalities, procedures and guidelines (MPGs) for the ETF

2024 First biennial transparency report (BTR) is due, replacing the BUR and BR

Reporting flexibilities for LDCs to submit at

developing countries their discretion

Capacity needs Enhancing LDC reporting

In general, LDCs identified their capacity constraints in
Self-identified capacity gaps and needs have
more detail than their needs. Few countries presented
increased over time as experience enables countries
a detailed plan for addressing their capacity building
to understand and identify the challenges they face.
needs to improve future GHG inventory preparation,
Between the first and third NC, the percentage of
partly because of a lack of reporting guidance on how
countries identifying needs around access to primary
to do this. Some reported their needs as part of a
data, strengthening institutional arrangements and
broader reporting capacity needs analysis that included
access to financial resources at least doubled. This
adaptation, mitigation and finance. The five clusters of
may reflect an increasing understanding of the need for
capacity needs were strengthening data management
significant and sustained financial and capacity building
systems, increasing human capacity in both number and
support to improve the quality of activity data, develop
skills, generating primary data, accessing technology
national emission factors, or properly operationalise
and accessing financial resources.
institutional arrangements.

www.iied.org 5
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

To understand how to frame transparency-related LDC • Ensure LDCs get the long-term financial and
capacity building actions, we can organise gaps and technical resources they need to improve the
needs into two interlinked components: frequency and quality of their GHG inventory reports,
and
1. The governance systems and institutional
arrangements that need to be in place to ensure • Simplify procedures, reduce bureaucracy and
continuous reporting, and streamline the approval process so countries receive
timely funds.
2. The technical aspects of obtaining the information
they need to fulfil the mandatory and non-mandatory To meet reporting requirements under the ETF, LDCs
requirements established under the ETF. need more accurate and reliable data. So, assuming
they get stronger guidance and support we also
Using this approach, it becomes clear, for example,
recommend that, to prepare for future reports, LDCs:
that strengthening governance would help LDCs
submit reports on time, while technical support can • Undertake more detailed and structured gaps
help them overcome constraints on fulfilling reporting and needs analysis to guide capacity building
requirements. Having access to financial resources actions and better inform the UNFCCC process,
would help with both aspects. capacity building initiatives and potential funders

Recommendations
• Institutionalise the reporting process, building on
existing resources and structures to reduce costs and
time to ensure more sustainable systems and seeking
Our analysis points to certain actions that could
high-level political buy-in to foster better engagement
increase LDC capacities and improve LDC reporting.
and coordination across stakeholders, facilitate
Direct support to build in-country capacity would
primary data collection and development and build a
change reporting dynamics and help LDCs shift from
solid transparency system
a fly-in, fly-out consultant model to a nationally-owned
institutionalised process. We therefore recommend that • Increase technical capacity to support and
the main UNFCCC bodies and financing mechanisms implement governance systems through country-led
involved in ETF implementation: training, extending capacity building programmes
to other national and local stakeholders to expand
• Develop methodological guidelines for reporting
domestic capacities.
on gaps and needs in line with the ETF

6 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Introduction

1 www.iied.org 7
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

On adopting the Paris Agreement, Parties to the United Based on a comparative analysis of information from
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change national reports to the UNFCCC, this paper aims to
(UNFCCC) agreed to reach net zero emissions by 2050 understand LDCs’ capacity building gaps and needs for
to maintain the global average temperature increase greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory reporting. It also aims
well below 2oC higher than pre-industrial levels and to inform the development of capacity building initiatives
pursue efforts to keep it below 1.5oC. As part of these to support LDCs to implement the ETF.
efforts, they agreed to present nationally determined
contributions (NDCs) — national plans with ambitious
objectives to transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient
1.1 Evolution of
economy — and established the Enhanced Transparency transparency arrangements
Framework (ETF).
When they signed the UNFCCC in 1992, Parties
The ETF is a transparency mechanism to report
committed to reduce GHG emissions, communicate
countries’ progress on mitigation and adaptation
regularly on their GHG emission performance, and
actions and support provided and/or received. The
provide information on measures undertaken to mitigate
information presented under the ETF will feed into
and adapt to climate change.4 Since then, they have
the Global Stocktake, the mechanism developed to
presented this, alongside other information relevant
assess collective progress towards achieving the Paris
to implementing the UNFCCC, in the form of national
Agreement’s long-term goals. Full implementation of
communications (NCs). Reporting requirements are
the ETF will be key to enhancing national and global
different for developed and developing countries: the
ambition and operationalising and bringing credibility
former need to include more information and greater
to the Paris Agreement.
detail — for example, on policies, measures and
As 2024 — the first ETF reporting deadline — projections. They must also present annual, standalone
approaches, all countries are preparing to meet the new GHG inventory reports. Their NCs and national GHG
and more stringent biennial reporting requirements. inventory reports are all subject to review. Developing
This is particularly challenging for developing countries, countries do not need to present a GHG inventory
especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who report, providing this information within their NC instead.
will need continuous and sustained capacity building
To improve the transparency of mitigation actions
support to meet them.
and their effects, all Parties agreed in 2010 to submit
The LDCs are the world’s 461 poorest and most NCs every four years and provide an update on this
vulnerable countries. They are highly vulnerable to both information every two years.5 For developed countries,
economic and environmental shocks and have low levels these updates take the form of biennial reports
of human assets and per capita income.2 Thirty-three (BRs), and for developing countries, biennial update
LDCs are in Africa, eight are in Asia, and five are Small reports (BURs). In their BR, developed countries are
Island Developing States — four in the Pacific and one in required to submit summary information focused on
the Caribbean. mitigation targets, progress towards these targets
and provision of support. They still present annual
Recognising the new reporting challenges for
GHG inventory reports. Developing countries update
developing countries, the Paris Agreement calls
their GHG inventories, mitigation actions, needs
for continuous support to build their transparency-
and support received within their BUR. LDCs retain
related capacities,3 and establishes special provisions
additional flexibility to submit their NCs and BURs at
for LDCs. The ETF also has reporting flexibilities
their discretion.
for developing countries that need them. However,
many LDCs already struggle to implement the Also in 2010, Parties established the International
current transparency framework, commonly known Consultation and Analysis (ICA) and International
as the monitoring reporting and verification (MRV) Assessment and Review (IAR) processes for
arrangements. And they will need additional support to developing and developed countries, respectively.
ensure their successful transition to the ETF. Under the ICA, a group of technical experts analyses
the BURs and prepares a technical report, followed
According to the Paris Agreement, capacity building
by a question-and-answer session called a facilitative
actions should be country-driven, based on national
sharing of views. Aimed at increasing clarity and
needs and guided by lessons learned during the
effectiveness of developing countries’ mitigation actions
UNFCCC reporting process. Understanding LDCs’
and other information provided in the BURs, the ICA
capacity constraints and needs is therefore crucial so
process marked the first time developing countries
they can start preparing for the ETF.
were engaged in a technical analysis process. The

8 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

IAR process also has two stages: a technical review

of individual developed country NCs, GHG inventory
1.2 Requirements and
reports and BRs, followed by a multilateral assessment flexibilities
of progress towards achieving emission reduction
targets, based on the results of the review. In contrast to the differentiated reporting requirements
for developed and developing country NCs and biennial
Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in
reporting, the ETF applies to all countries, irrespective of
2015 and the establishment of the ETF, the reporting
economic status. It will be operationalised through a set
process has evolved. From 2024, the differentiated BUR
of rules called modalities, procedures and guidelines,
and BR will be replaced by the biennial transparency
(MPGs), which were established in a decision under the
report (BTR), which all Parties will be required to
Paris Agreement.7
submit. The deadline for submitting the first BTR is
31 December 2024, though LDCs have the flexibility to Based and built on the existing MRV transparency
submit at their discretion. arrangements, the ETF is not a completely new
reporting framework. But it does bring changes in all
The ETF has three mandatory (in bold below) and two
the reporting elements. Under the ETF, it becomes
non-mandatory reporting elements:
mandatory for developing countries to present a national
• National GHG inventories GHG inventory report. They must also now follow the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC)
• Support provided and mobilised
most recent (2006) methodological guidelines for GHG
• Progress in implementing and achieving NDCs inventories8 rather than the older (1996) ones, prepare
key category analysis and uncertainty assessments,
• Support needed and received, and
and report on seven, rather than three, gases. Table 2
• Climate change impacts and adaptation.6 summarises the requirements for the different types
of report.
Like its predecessors, the BTR will be subject to
a technical expert review and a sharing of views While there is still some flexibility for developing
session, called the facilitative multilateral consideration countries in terms of scope, frequency and level of
of progress. Table 1 compares the current MRV detail, the change in requirements is more significant
transparency arrangements for developing countries for them than it is for developed countries. As the most
under the UNFCCC and the new ones under the ETF. vulnerable countries with severe capacity limitations,
Under the current MRV arrangements, they report with LDCs can submit information at their discretion and
both NCs and BURs under the UNFCCC. From 2024, participate in the review process as a group rather
they will continue to report with the NC, which remains than individually.
the main reporting document under the UNFCCC. But
instead of the BUR, they will report with the BTR under
the Paris Agreement.

Table 1. Existing and new transparency arrangements for developing countries

Existing arrangements Arrangements from 2024

MRV under the ETF under the Paris
MRV under the UNFCCC UNFCCC Agreement
Reporting NC BUR NC BTR
Review and Not contemplated Technical analysis Not contemplated Technical expert review
analysis of BURs
Multilateral Not contemplated Facilitative Not contemplated Facilitative multilateral
consideration sharing of views consideration of progress

www.iied.org 9
 Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

The BTR is at the core of the Paris Agreement. It will addressed in a sustainable way, their reporting will
be an input for the Global Stocktake, where countries be crucial to ensure subsequent Global Stocktakes
will assess, every five years, their collective progress create a full picture of what has been accomplished at
towards achieving the Paris Agreement goals. The global level.
first stocktake is due in 2023. If LDC limitations are

Table 2. GHG inventory reporting requirements for developing countries, by report type

Requirements NC BUR BTR

National inventory report No requirement for No requirement for Mandatory full national
separate report. GHG separate report. Update of inventory report every
inventory information GHG inventory information two years, either as part of
included as chapter of the in chapter of the BUR the BTR or a standalone
NC every four years every two years document
National inventory Describe institutional Describe institutional Report on institutional
arrangements arrangements arrangements arrangements, including
preparation process,
archiving of information
and quality assurance/
quality control
IPCC guidelines Revised 1996 IPCC 1996 IPCC guidelines 2006 IPCC guidelines for
guidelines for national Good practice guidance national greenhouse gas
greenhouse gas (GPG) and uncertainty inventories (2006 IPCC
inventories (1996 IPCC management in national guidelines)
guidelines) greenhouse gas
inventories (2000)
GPG for land use, land-
use change and forestry
(LULUCF)
Inventory years 1990/94 No more than four years No more than
2000 before submission four years before
submission
Key category analysis Encouraged Encouraged Mandatory
Time series No requirement Years since the last NC From 1990
Uncertainty assessment Quantitatively estimate Quantitatively estimate Quantitatively estimate
Quality assurance/ No requirement No requirement Develop a quality
control assurance/control plan
Recalculations No requirement Update activity data Recalculate data
Mandatory CO2, N2O, CH4 CO2, N2O, CH4 CO2, N2O, CH4 , HFCs,
Gases: PFCs, SF6, NF3
Non-mandatory HFCs, PFCs, SF6 HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Notes: For requirements in bold, developing countries with capacity limitations are granted flexibility in reporting. CO2 = carbon dioxide;
N2O = nitrous oxide; CH4 = methane; HFCs = hydrofluorocarbons; PFCs = perfluorocarbons; SF6 = sulphur hexafluoride;
NF3 =nitrogen trifluoride

10 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

1.3 Scope and methodology • Understanding current GHG inventory reporting

constraints and needs provides a basis for
This issue paper report looked at more than 20 years assessing LDC capacity needs for reporting under
of LDC transparency reporting experience under the the MPGs and informing capacity building plans
UNFCCC, covering all NCs and BURs submitted and programmes.
before March 2020 that are available on the UNFCCC
The analysis was focused on collecting self-identified
webpage. This meant analysing 109 reports: 47 first
capacity gaps and needs, which we classified into five
NCs, 40 second NCs, 15 third NCs, 1 fourth NC and
main groups, subdivided by issues. In most reports, we
6 BURs.
found the data either in the executive summary or one of
We focused primarily on the self-identified capacity the following chapters:
gaps and needs that countries faced in reporting
• National GHG inventory (introduction, and/or sector
their GHG inventories. We considered capacity gaps
quality assurance, control and uncertainties sections)
as the technical and institutional constraints that
countries encountered when preparing their GHG • MRV, or
inventories. We considered capacity needs as the
• Constraints, gaps and financial and technical capacity
technical, technological and financial support that
building needs.
would allow them to overcome those constraints and
report in line with the guidelines. We focused on GHG We created a table with the list of countries and
inventories because: capacity gaps and needs for each NC round (first,
second and third) and for the BURs, processing all the
• They are a common reporting requirement for all
information based on a binary (1/0) approach to prepare
reports that become mandatory under the ETF
the quantitative analysis. We also compiled the relevant
• All Parties use the IPCC methodological framework to sections or chapters from the reviewed reports in a
create their inventories, facilitating comparisons and document organised by country and report, which we
allowing us to assess progress and needs used to gather and present the qualitative information.
Due to the small number of BURs and the single fourth
• They have a crucial policy role as they provide
NC in the sample, we did not include these in the
information to assess progress towards the ultimate
quantitative analysis, focusing instead on comparing the
objectives of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement:
first, second and third NCs. We did, however, consider
reducing emissions and evaluating mitigation options
the information in the qualitative analysis.
and the effectiveness of policies and measures at
national and global levels
• The information reported in them is used for modelling
future emissions and is therefore an important input
for NDCs and long-term planning, and

www.iied.org 11
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

LDC transparency
reporting: state of play

2
12 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Senegal was the first LDC to submit an NC in 1997.

Since then, all LDCs have presented their first NC;
2.1 Classifying self-
40 have submitted their second; 14 their third; and one identified capacity gaps and
country, Mauritania, has submitted its fourth NC. Of
the 47 countries, only six had submitted their first BUR needs
between 2016 and May 2020 (Figure 2).
From the 109 reports analysed, 88 identified capacity
Our analysis indicated that countries were able constraints. We divided this information into gaps and
to submit reports much less frequently than the needs. It is important to note that, although capacity
recommended four and two-year intervals for NCs and needs can be expected to directly correlate to capacity
BURs, respectively. The average time lapse between gaps, many of the reports that outlined a capacity gap
the first and second NCs for the 40 countries that did not also identify a related capacity need.
submitted them was ten years. The 14 countries that
have submitted three NCs closed the gap between the Capacity gaps
second and third submission to seven years on average.
To compare quantitative information between countries
This reduction could be the consequence of the
and consecutive reports, we broke capacity gaps down
knowledge and experience gained by these countries or
into five clusters, which we subdivided into three or four
the sharing of such knowledge by other countries and
types of issue for a more detailed analysis (see Table 3).
organisations over the years. Not all LDCs submitted
We used the following criteria to define the clusters and
their reports at the same time: 40 submitted their first
issues within them:
NC between 1997 and 2007; the other seven, between
2012 and 2020. • Lack of data: Existence of or access to the basic
data required to make the emissions estimates
Although the first BUR was due by December 2014,9
— for example, quantity of fuel used or area of
the first LDC to submit one, Mauritania, did so in 2016.
rice cultivation
They were followed by Togo in 2017 and Yemen in
2018. Uganda, Benin, and Afghanistan submitted theirs • Data quality: The condition of existing information,
in 2019. No LDC had submitted a second BUR within including high uncertainty, level of information or
the period analysed in the study. incompatibility of the same or related data from
different sources — for example, available category-
level information that makes it difficult to prepare
estimates at the subcategory level according to the
2006 IPCC inventory guidelines

Figure 2. NCs and BURs submitted by LDCs (1997 to May 2020)

First NC 47

Second NC 40
Type of report

Third NC 14

Fourth NC 1

BUR 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of LDCs

www.iied.org 13
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

• Data management: All constraints related to Capacity needs

data collection, from inconsistent forms to the lack
Among LDCs’ self-reported capacity needs, five
of systems or designated institution for obtaining,
clusters emerged, but a lack of details in the NCs meant
organising and storing data
we could not subdivide these into issues. We used the
• Methodological issues: Lack of technical expertise following criteria to define the five clusters:
for developing national emission factors and models,
• Primary data generation: Obtaining or improving
and capacity to use the 2006 IPCC guidelines and
activity data and emission factors
related inventory software, and
• Strengthening institutional arrangements:
• Institutional issues: Difficulties with national
Collecting, archiving and organising data for use in
procedures and arrangements for preparing and
the GHG inventory, and institutional structures to
reporting the GHG inventory, including organisational
facilitate this
structure and mandates, coordination between
institutions involved in the inventory process and lack • Increasing human capacity: Skilled human
of trained technical staff. resources to prepare the inventory
• Access to technology: Software, hardware, and
other technology, and
• Access to financial resources: Financial or in-kind
support to improve any aspect of the inventories and/
or undertake timely transparency processes.

Box 2. Definitions
National GHG inventory report: Document per litre of diesel consumed. We use emission factors
containing sectoral and total human-induced domestic to convert activity data into emissions. Emission
GHG emissions for a certain year or period, including factors are often based on a sample of measurement
data and methodologies used to prepare the data, averaged to develop a rate of emissions for a
estimates. It also includes a set of standard reporting unit of a certain activity.
tables and should be prepared following agreed IPCC
Estimation methods: The most common simple
methodological guidelines.
methodological approach to estimate emissions is
Sectors, categories and subcategories: GHG combining activity data with relevant emission factors.
emission and removal estimates are divided into The basic equation is:
five main sectors: energy, industrial processes and
emissions = AD * EF
product use, agriculture, LULUCF and waste. Each
sector comprises individual categories (such as The 2006 IPCC guidelines include more complex
transport in energy or rice cultivation in agriculture) modelling approaches that could represent better
and subcategories (such as cars or irrigated land). processes and national circumstances.
Countries follow IPCC methodologies to build their
Uncertainty: GHG inventories are based on
inventories, starting from the more disaggregated
emissions estimates, which may have different levels
subcategory level and then adding these together into
of uncertainty — and the bigger the uncertainty, the
categories and sectors to calculate total emissions.
less reliable the estimates. Uncertainty depends on
Time series: A sequence of annual GHG inventory the quality and quantity of data and on knowledge
estimates — for example, each year from 2010 of the underlying processes and methods used in
to 2015. the estimates.
Activity data (AD): Data on the magnitude of a Secondary data source: Information not produced
human activity resulting in emissions or removals — for or collected for the main purpose of developing the
example, fuel consumption, metal production, land national GHG inventory — for example, published
areas or fertiliser use — taking place in a given period. studies, scientific literature and regional or global
databases from international organisations.
Emission factor (EF): A coefficient that quantifies
the emissions or removals of a gas per unit activity. Source: Based on Eggleston et al. 2006.8
For example, kilogrammes of carbon dioxide emitted

14 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Table 3. Capacity gaps: types of issue by cluster

Lack Data Data Methodological Institutional

of data quality management issues issues
Time series data Reliability of data Data in different or Lack of national emission Lack of coordination
not available unsuitable formats factors between institutions
Proprietary data Data not Widely dispersed Unfamiliarity with IPCC Absence of
issues preventing disaggregated data sources inventory software/ multidisciplinary
access or data from guidelines or lack of teams
secondary sources technical expertise
Data not in Non-concordance Lack of focal Insufficient or Lack of institutional
electronic form of data institution for data inappropriate models structure
management
Lack of data Absence of
management permanent team
system

2.2 Understanding second report but not in the third. That could be due
to a change of team and/or general strategy or plan for
capacity gaps preparing the GHG inventory section, or down to a lack
of guidance on how to report capacity gaps in NCs.10
The analysis showed that 70% of LDCs self-identified
The data showed that self-identified capacity gaps
capacity gaps in their first NC, at least in one of the
increased over time in all five clusters, but particularly
five clusters. That figure grew to 93% in the second NC,
for lack of data and methodological issues (Figure 3).
falling to 80% for those who reported a third NC. All
Analysis of the disaggregated issues in each cluster
BURs reported self-identified gaps, possibly because
showed that, although several countries identified lack
the UNFCCC reporting guidelines contain advice on
of data as a problem, few (25% in the first NC and 45%
reporting on capacity-related issues.9 The reduction
in the third) disaggregated this information to issues
in self-identified capacity gaps in the third NCs is
such as type of data or sector.
caused by several countries that identified gaps in the

Figure 3. Self-identified capacity gaps by cluster and NC report

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lack of data Data quality Methodological Data Institutional
issues management issues

¢ NC1   ¢ NC2   ¢ NC3

www.iied.org 15
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Lack of data disaggregated into the required subcategories. This

affected the completeness of the GHG inventory, and
Countries reported problems related to the scarcity
in some cases led to the development of alternative
of data for all or some of the sectors required for
and less reliable data estimates reported at the
estimating GHG inventories. This was particularly
subcategory level. Some countries found that the lack
relevant in informal or less organised sectors of the
of disaggregated data affected their ability to use some
economy, such as agriculture, forestry and small-
generic emission factors, as the activity data were not
scale industries, in which gathering and registering
adequately aggregated for the available emission factors
information is not a common practice.
in the IPCC guidelines.
In some cases, the information was available for one or
Non-concordance of data from different sources was
some years but not for the number of years required to
another problem. This includes discrepancies between
build a GHG inventory time series, which is important
data collected by:
for tracking emissions trends over time. Time series
are also mandatory under the ETF, although reporting • Different government institutions
flexibility is granted to developing countries where data
• Private and public sector institutions
are unavailable. Countries reported a lack of up-to-date
data, with some using estimates that were more than • The supply and demand sides of the same product
ten years old — for example, one NC submitted in 2016 — for example, diesel imports reported in the trade
contained emissions estimates for 2000. statistics and diesel use reported by the transport,
energy and agriculture sectors
Some countries reported difficulties in accessing
information, with institutions reluctant to share data • Different national entities within the same sector — for
they considered confidential, private or not for public example, differences in areas reported to be under
use. There were also issues with information not being crop cultivation or forest land in the land use sector.
available in electronic format, requiring quality checks
Such inconsistencies also increase uncertainty in the
and making data collection and analysis both difficult
estimates and the inventory results.
and time consuming.

Data quality Data management

Several countries reported difficulties in preparing their
The quality of the information used to prepare GHG
inventories because the data were available in formats
inventories determines the accuracy of emissions
that were unsuitable for the GHG inventory or difficult
estimates. But the lack of local or national information
to process. This includes data reported in percentages
meant that several countries used secondary data
and rates rather than in real figures and counts. In most
sources from international or regional organisations
cases, this was because the GHG inventory was not the
or default emission factors available in the IPCC
primary reason for collecting that information.
guidelines. The more a country’s inventory relies
on secondary sources and default values, the less In many countries, data sources are widely dispersed
accurate it becomes. This is especially so when among different institutions, which makes identifying
the values are obtained or developed under other the organisations in charge of collecting the data
countries’ conditions. and pulling together the disparate information time
consuming. For example, one country reported that data
Some sectors struggled more than others, and the land
for the energy sector was dispersed between more than
use sector had the highest uncertainties due to data
five institutions.
quality. In some cases, data providers did not publish
the uncertainty ranges associated to the information, so In the first and second NCs, some countries reported
countries had to use expert judgement to determine the that not having a designated ministry or government
uncertainty associated with activity data and emission institution holding continuous data and knowledge
factors. This increased the uncertainty of inventory management systems was a problem when preparing
estimations. In other cases, countries used data series GHG inventories. Closely related to this, some reported
provided by private sector entities that were not reliable that their lack of data management system, formal and
enough in terms of continuity or quality. institutionalised framework and planned process for
gathering, compiling and archiving the data they need
Several countries reported that, although information
to produce the inventories made it difficult to ensure
was available at category level, it could not be
continuity in GHG estimations.

16 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Methodological challenges Countries’ ability to prepare GHG inventories was

also hampered by their lack of multidisciplinary teams
The lack of national emission factors was the most
with technical experts for the different inventory
prominent methodological issue countries mentioned.
sectors. Problems related to maintaining a permanent
With no capacity to develop their own emission factors,
transparency team — mainly due to high staff turnover
many countries applied the generic emission factors
within national institutions — and the need to rely
from the IPCC guidelines. Measured under particular
on consultants to prepare the inventory affected
ecological and socioeconomic conditions, these are
institutional memory and continuity in reporting.
often unsuitable for LDCs, increasing the uncertainty

2.3 Understanding
of inventory results. The absence of country-specific
emission factors for different categories meant that
countries could not use the more complex methods
provided in the IPCC guidelines, which can produce capacity needs
more accurate estimates.
The study showed that, in general, LDCs identified the
A few countries reported that unfamiliarity with the IPCC capacity constraints they face in undertaking their GHG
guidelines and inventory software used to estimate inventories in more detail than their capacity needs.
emissions made it difficult for them to prepare the Few countries presented a detailed plan for addressing
inventories, while some pointed to a lack of technical their capacity building needs to improve future
modelling expertise. An incomplete understanding GHG inventory preparation described by sector and
of the processes or variables that cause GHG categories. This was at least partly because of a lack of
emissions from different activities — such as the impact reporting guidance on how to do this. Some reported
of farm management practices on rice cultivation their needs as part of a broader reporting capacity
emissions — also posed difficulties in identifying and needs analysis that included adaptation, mitigation
applying appropriate models for estimating emissions. and finance. Our analysis showed, however, that self-
identification of needs grew steadily over the years, with
Institutional challenges 61% of countries reporting needs in the first NC, 84%
in the second NC, and 92% in the third.
The most common institutional constraints reported
were a lack of coordination between ministries or Across the three NCs, countries consistently identified
other national organisations involved in preparing the strengthening data management systems and increasing
inventory and a lack of institutional structure. Several human resources as their most important capacity
countries said they struggled to involve all the necessary needs. Access to financial resources became more
organisations in the process and to coordinate the important, particularly between the second and third
activities between them, which made it difficult to collect NC rounds, with an increase of almost 50% of countries
and report data in the right format and a timely manner. stressing the need to access financial resources to
improve their reporting (Figure 5). This may also reflect
The lack of institutional structures, support and
an increasing understanding of capacity gaps and
administrative or legal texts, such as decrees or laws,
needs over time, including the need for significant and
also made it hard for countries to ensure they undertook
sustained financial and capacity building support to
national GHG inventory processes on a regular basis. A
address the new demand.
formal and institutionalised framework, with clear roles
and responsibilities, can: In their NCs and BURs, countries have increasingly
raised the need to generate good quality primary
• Ensure the participation of all relevant government and
data — both activity data and local emission factors —
private entities in preparing the GHG inventory
to reduce uncertainty in their inventories. Some have
• Define and operationalise a data management system carried out studies to enhance their understanding of
for compiling the GHG inventory, and GHG emissions in different production activities under
local conditions; others have prioritised the need to
• Provide continuity between NC and BTR cycles.
collect new data in different sectors to fill the data gap
Figure 4 shows an example of such a framework. and improve the completeness of their inventory.

www.iied.org 17
18 Figure 4. Somalia’s proposed national GHG inventory institutional arrangements

Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting
www.iied.org

OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER

Compilation guidelines and
Reporting to UNFCCC
instructions
CCD – Inventory oversight
Quality assurance/quality control,
TASK FORCE technical, planning

GHG inventory compilation

Data providers Energy compilers

Industry/private sector

consolidation
Agriculture, forestry and other

Inventory
Nongovernmental organisations and land use compilers
United Nations organisations
Industrial processes and
Environmental agencies product use compilers

National statistics agency Waste compilers

International organisations

Academic institutions Stakeholders/reviewers

Academic research
Research organisations
Environmental agencies EXTERNAL
Other inventories REVIEWERS
National statistics body

Nongovernmental organisations

Task group Task group Task group Task group Task group Task group Task group for Task group
for energy for transport for agriculture for LULUCF for waste for IPPU climatic data for soil data
subsector subsector subsector subsector sector subsector subsector subsector

Source: Modified from Federal Republic of Somalia 2018.11

Note: Each subsector task group has a sector lead and an archiving coordinator. Energy, transport, agriculture, LULUCF and waste also have a quality assurance and quality control coordinator.
 IIED Issue paper

Figure 5. Self-identified capacity needs by cluster and NC report

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Primary data Strengthen Increase human Access to Access to
generation institutional capacity technology financial resources
arrangements

¢ NC1   ¢ NC2   ¢ NC3

Strengthening institutional arrangements was one Several countries also reported the need to increase
of the highest priority areas for ensuring a continuous human capacity, both in terms of numbers and
flow of information between institutions involved in skills, to improve their inventories. This includes
inventory preparation. Specifically, countries highlighted training government staff to collect and analyse data
the need to: and improve the quality of activity data and emission
factors used to generate the inventory. Some said they
• Standardise data collection by developing manuals
need training on how to use the IPCC guidelines and
and formats that are consistent with the 2006 IPCC
software, and other relevant computer systems, or
guidelines and training sectoral institutions in how to
access to better technological resources — including
use them
computers, software and internet connections — to
• Automate and upgrade data collection and processing be able to process the data and prepare reports.
facilities, modernise information systems and improve Finally, several countries outlined their need to access
the process through data verification financial resources. Among other things, this
would allow them to improve the quality of activity
• Formalise and institutionalise the collection and
data, develop national emission factors, or properly
reporting process, assigning clear roles and
operationalise the institutional arrangements.
responsibilities to the institutions involved, and
• Develop robust archiving systems to facilitate future
inventory compilations.

www.iied.org 19
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Enhancing LDC
reporting: preparing
for the ETF

3
20 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

The data collected show that self-identified capacity

gaps have increased over time (Figure 3). This means
3.1 Understanding the
that countries have gained experience over the years relationship between gaps
to self-identify the challenges they face. And while
simple capacity constraints such as lack of data have and needs
not significantly decreased, countries have identified
LDCs’ self-identified capacity gaps and needs covered
significantly more capacity constraints around data
all aspects of preparing a national GHG inventory.
quality, data management, methodological issues and
Although most reports do not explicitly correlate
institutional issues, which reflect a more sophisticated
needs and gaps, we can organise them under the
understanding of transparency systems.
following interlinked components that LDCs should
In general, countries identified fewer capacity needs carefully consider:
than gaps. But self-identified capacity needs have
• The governance systems and institutional
increased over time, particularly around access to
arrangements that need to be in place to ensure
primary data, strengthening institutional arrangements
continuous reporting, and
and access to financial resources. These three needs
at least doubled, in terms of percentage of countries • The technical aspects of obtaining the information
that identified them, between the first and third NC, they need to fulfil the mandatory and non-mandatory
demonstrating LDCs’ increasing capacity to self-identify requirements established under the ETF.12
their needs.
This framework can help illuminate the relationship
It is not always possible to find a clear and between gap and need clusters and how they affect
straightforward linkage between capacity gaps reporting. This, in turn, will help LDCs understand how
and needs; nor do they always correlate in level of to frame transparency-related capacity building actions
importance. For example, although almost 90% of when assessing future gaps and needs. For example,
NCs identified ‘lack of data’ as a constraint, only 22% from an international perspective, capacity gaps have
identified ‘primary data generation’ as a need. The lack made it difficult for LDCs to submit timely reports to the
of disaggregation and capacity need details also made it UNFCCC and fulfil all mandatory and non-mandatory
difficult to analyse the results and understand countries’ reporting requirements.13 Using the framework
capacity requirements. presented in Table 4, we can see that the difficulties of
submitting reports on time are mainly associated with
These inconsistencies and different levels of reporting
governance, while the constraints on fulfilling all the
are not only the result of constraints on countries’
reporting requirements are a technical issue. Having
ability to prepare and report on gaps and needs. They
access to financial resources is a crosscutting need that
also reflect the NCs’ and BURs’ lack of standardised
affects both aspects.
sections, formats and methodological guidance on
where and how to present the gaps and need analysis
for GHG inventories. Reports are also mainly prepared
with the support of external consultants through a
fly-in, fly-out model. As a result, countries do not own
the technical process, making it difficult for them to
understand what they can do as well as their limitations
and capacity needs.

Table 4. Linkages between capacity gaps and needs

Gaps Needs
Governance aspects Institutional issues Strengthening institutional
Data management arrangements
Access to
Technical aspects Lack of data Primary data generation financial
Data quality Access to technology resources
Methodological issues Increase human capacity

www.iied.org 21
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

3.2 Strengthening 3.3 Overcoming
governance systems technical challenges
LDCs face difficulties in establishing or enhancing Technical aspects also affect countries’ ability to fulfil all
domestic institutional arrangements. Most rely on their reporting requirements. The scarcity of adequate
consultants, using a fly-in, fly-out approach, to prepare primary data reduces the quality of LDC inventories,
reports without strong links to national institutions. mainly in terms of accuracy and completeness.
This ad hoc approach has also weakened institutional According to the IPCC guidelines, complete
memory, as each new consultant group starts almost inventories report emissions for all gases, sectors and
from scratch when collecting data and preparing categories, and accurate inventories neither over- nor
estimations. This, in turn, causes delays in reporting. underestimate emissions.
With the increased reporting frequency established by When countries cannot gather activity data or obtain
the BURs and continued by the BTRs, countries must emission factors for some categories, they cannot
move from this project-based approach to reporting fully estimate emissions of some sectors. This leads
to a more institutionalised approach that supports to incomplete inventories. The impact of the missing
more frequent reporting. They need to build in-house categories on total emissions depends on the
capacity, develop domestic institutional reporting importance of those categories and their corresponding
arrangements and build institutional memory for sectors in the country. The sectors that correlate with
transparency processes. For national GHG inventories, main economic activities are generally more relevant
this includes establishing procedures and arrangements in terms of emissions. LDC economies are usually
for collecting, documenting, preparing quality checks highly dependent on farming, grazing and forest-related
on, and archiving data, as well as for preparing the activities, so agriculture and land use are often the most
inventory reports. relevant sectors in their GHG inventories.
But experience from developed countries shows But these sectors are also the most challenging to
that, even with the right resources, building reporting estimate and report on, due to their dual function of
capacity and developing the ability to meet deadlines being both sources and sinks of emissions, the multiple
takes time. It took developed countries 16 years methods for understanding and representing the fluxes
to improve from 30% of countries (13) submitting of gases in natural systems, and, in some cases, the
their NCs on time in the third round14 to 65% (28) in difficulty of attributing emissions to anthropogenic or
the seventh,15 with 12 of the 15 outstanding reports natural causes. In most LDCs, these are also informal
submitted within a year of the deadline. This progress sectors, where statistics are scarce and a variety of
is mainly the result of a steady improvement of national management practices and production models coexist
institutional arrangements, which has allowed most that are not always well documented and studied. This
developed countries to report in a timely manner and adds complexity to the estimations. For example, the
with the required level of detail. IPCC guidelines lack methodologies and emission
factors that are suitable for traditional agriculture in
From 2010, developing countries were required to
Nepal, and the country has not yet the capacity to
submit their NCs every four years, conditional to the
develop its own.13
availability of financial resources. With the introduction
of the BUR, the reporting cycle was reduced to every When activity data are available but the quality of
two years. The same frequency has been established for information is low, or when countries mainly use
the BTR from 2024, although LDCs can submit at their generic or default emission factors in their calculations,
discretion. Most LDCs have needed more than double it increases uncertainty, reducing the accuracy of
the expected time to report their NCs; only 30% have inventory results. This means that the real emissions
been able to present a third NC and only 15% have of the category or sector can be significantly higher
submitted a BUR. So, it is highly probable that they will or lower than the estimates, which would impact on
not find it easy to transition into the ETF with the new global GHG emissions figures and progress achieved
reporting requirements. Like developed countries before towards global emissions reduction goals. And as
them, LDCs will need both time and support to develop one of the objectives of GHG inventories is to inform
a system that is adapted to their reporting needs and and guide national mitigation actions, it affects the
domestic circumstances. robustness of the inventory and can mislead domestic
decision making.

22 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

To generate emission factors that reflect local realities

and improve activity data to prepare and biennially
3.4 Access to finance
report high-quality GHG inventories, countries need a The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement acknowledged the
qualified mass of experts from different backgrounds need for financial support to developing countries for
that can: reporting and established a mechanism to provide it.
As with the NCs and BURs, LDCs will need to access
• Collect a broad range of information
financial resources through the GEF to prepare and
• Apply the 2006 IPCC guidelines submit their BTRs. There are two main modalities
for accessing funds: either directly from the GEF
• Understand the dynamics of different sectors to
Secretariat or indirectly via a GEF agency,17 such as the
define assumptions
United Nations Development Programme or the United
• Take methodological decisions Nations Environment Programme. These agencies
help countries develop project proposals that follow
• Implement the calculations, and
GEF policy guidelines, and manage and implement
• Prepare the reports. the projects on the ground. To access available funds
for NC and BUR reporting, all LDCs have presented
In their NCs and BURs, LDCs have identified the
their funding proposals through a relevant GEF agency
need to increase human capacity and reduce the
rather than directly. This might have been because
high turnover of trained government staff dedicated
these agencies have a longer experience and better
to compiling and preparing GHG inventories. To
understanding of the GEF processes and requirements,
mitigate this problem, LDCs could consider involving
as there are several administrative stages before
other sectors at national, regional and local levels
countries can sign the grant agreement and receive
in training programmes. Increasing collaboration
the funds.
between academia, the private sector and civil society
organisations at different levels can help expand the It is true that countries’ gaps in capacity — for writing
number of trained staff and reduce the impact of high proposals, understanding requirements, engaging
staff turnover. different stakeholders in the process, and so on — have
contributed to delays in accessing the funds they need
The Paris Agreement established the Capacity Building
to start preparing their transparency reports. But the
Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) to help developing
financing process also needs to be more efficient. While
countries meet their requirements under the ETF.
the administration time has improved significantly over
Operationalised by the Global Environmental Facility
the years, reaching to almost two years for BURs,18
(GEF) — the financial mechanism to the UNFCCC
there are still challenges within the GEF and GEF
that supports developing countries in preparing their
agencies that delay the application process.7 For
NCs and BURs16 — the CBIT has the tools, training,
example, each transparency report is treated as a new
assistance and other activities to help countries build
project, so countries must make a new application to the
reporting systems that are in line with their national
GEF at the start of each reporting cycle. This creates
priorities. The mandate of the Consultative Group of
delays in the application process, which in turn cause
Experts (CGE), a UNFCCC technical body aimed
delays in the new reporting cycle or mean that countries
at helping developing countries meet reporting
must rush the preparation of their transparency reports.
requirements, has also been extended to help
On average, it takes almost two years from submitting
implement the ETF.7 Both bodies can be instrumental in
a project proposal to the GEF Secretariat to the first
this process, helping LDCs strengthen their technical
disbursement of funds. Unless this turnaround time
and institutional capacities and providing technical
becomes more efficient, countries will invariably struggle
advice and support to prepare the BTRs.
to meet the two-year reporting cycle.

www.iied.org 23
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Looking forward

4
24 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

At the heart of the ETF, GHG inventories form the

basis for developing mitigation policies, projecting
4.2 Recommendations
emissions and assessing progress at national and for LDCs
global levels. Improving LDCs’ GHG inventory reporting
is therefore vital if they are to meet their domestic and Enhance capacity gaps and needs analysis:
international commitments and achieve their vision to Although LDCs have self-identified capacity gaps
deliver net-zero emissions by 2050. Our analysis points and needs for preparing and reporting their GHG
to certain actions that could increase LDC capacities inventories, their analysis of the issue is neither
and improve LDC reporting. We present these here as systematic nor consistent across sectors or reports.
recommendations for UNFCCC bodies and financial And with the ETF’s increased reporting requirements,
mechanisms that support the ETF implementation and these gaps and needs will only increase.
for LDCs.
If the UNFCCC take up the recommendation to provide

4.1 Recommendations
stronger guidance on reporting gaps and needs,
LDCs could undertake more detailed and structured
for UNFCCC bodies and gaps and needs analysis in future reports. Not only
would this guide capacity building actions, it would
financial mechanisms also better inform the UNFCCC process, capacity
building initiatives and potential funders. Including
Provide guidance for gaps and needs reporting: such assessments in the planning stage of the GHG
LDC capacity building gaps and needs have increased inventory process would ensure countries collect
and evolved over time in response to their gained information from all stages of the inventory cycle.
experience in UNFCCC reporting. However, they were
Institutionalise the reporting process: Institutional
not consistently reported and many LDCs collected and
arrangements that respond to national circumstances
reported more detailed information on gaps than needs.
and priorities and build on existing resources and
This does not mean they have fewer needs; it probably
structures will reduce costs and time and ensure more
reflects a lack of guidance. To support LDCs, the CGE
sustainable reporting. It is important that decision
could develop methodological guidelines for reporting
makers understand the benefits of strong governance
on gaps and needs in line with the ETF. By facilitating a
systems and institutional arrangements for international
more systematic approach, such guidelines would help
reporting and national policy development. And as
countries monitor progress and assess their capacity
institutional setups involve multiple ministries and
building efforts.
organisations across government and nongovernmental
Improving financial and technical support: LDCs institutions, LDCs should seek high-level political buy-in
need timely, sustained financial and technical support to foster better engagement and coordination across
to improve the frequency and quality of their inventory stakeholders and facilitate primary data collection
reports, and UNFCCC mechanisms and initiatives and development. Establishing multistakeholder
have an important role to play in ensuring they receive commissions or other national coordination forums can
it. Simplifying the GEF’s procedures during the project help build a solid transparency system.
cycle, reducing bureaucracy and streamlining the
Increase technical capacity: Training can help
approval process so countries receive funds within
LDCs collect and develop primary data, understand
six months of submitting a project proposal would
and implement IPCC guidelines, and prepare GHG
be good starting points.
inventory reports. But to be effective and sustainable,
Allowing one funding application to support multiple capacity building activities must be country-led,
reporting cycles would also speed up reporting. With adapted to national conditions and structures, and
NDCs at the core of the BTRs, it is important for the responsive to their reporting objectives and priorities.
GEF to finance a package of at least three BTRs LDCs should also explore extending capacity building
(six years) to match a five-year NDC cycle. programmes to other stakeholders to expand domestic
capacities. Involving universities, research institutes
As a GEF capacity building entity, the CBIT has a
and nongovernmental organisations in the inventory
crucial role in helping LDCs address technical gaps and
process can improve data collection and archiving,
strengthen their national inventory arrangements. By
facilitate the development of emission factors, increase
providing direct support to build in-country capacity, the
the number of national experts, and contribute to
CBIT could be instrumental in changing LDC reporting
institutional memory.
dynamics and helping them move from a fly-in, fly-out
consultant model to a nationally owned institutionalised
process. It can also facilitate access to capacity building
by including a separate funding stream designed to
respond to LDC needs and circumstances.

www.iied.org 25
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Acronyms
AD activity data
BR biennial report
BTR biennial transparency report
BUR biennial update report
CBIT Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency
CGE Consultative Group of Experts
EF emission factor
ETF Enhanced Transparency Framework
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG greenhouse gases
GPG good practice guidance
IAR International Assessment and Review
ICA International Consultation and Analysis
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDCs Least Developed Countries
LULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry
MPGs modalities, procedures and guidelines
MRV monitoring reporting and verification
NC national communication
NDCs nationally determined contributions
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

26 www.iied.org
 IIED Issue paper

Related reading
Barakat, S, Abeysinghe, A, Dagnet, Y, Endalew,
J G, Jallow, B P, More, C H, Dorji, T and Verkuijl,
C (2017) A guide to transparency under the
UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. IIED Toolkit. See
https://pubs.iied.org/10190IIED
Aragon, I and Dorji, T (2019) Meeting the enhanced
transparency framework: what next for the LDCs? IIED
Briefing. See https://pubs.iied.org/17730IIED

www.iied.org 27
Implementing the Paris Agreement | LDC gaps and needs in GHG inventory reporting

Notes and references

  1 Vanuatu, an island on the western Pacific, graduated from 10 UNFCCC (2003) ‘Guidelines for the preparation of
LDC status on 4 December 2020, reducing the number national communications from Parties not included in
of LDCs to 46. However, at the time of the research, Annex I to the convention’. In Report of the Conference
there were 47 LDCs and we use this figure throughout of the Parties on its eighth session, held at New Delhi
the document. from 23 October to 1 November 2002. Addendum Part
  2 United Nations (2020) The Least Developed Countries Two: action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its
Report 2020: Productive capacities for the new decade. eighth session, Decision 17/CP.8. See https://unfccc.
See https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ int/resource/docs/cop8/07a02.pdf
ldcr2020_en.pdf 11 Federal Republic of Somalia (2018) The Initial National
  3 UNFCCC (2015) ‘Adoption of the Paris Agreement’, Communication for Somalia to the United Nations
Article 13 (paragraphs 14 and 15). In Report of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, See https://unfccc.int/documents/192579
held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 12 Dagnet, Y, Cogswell, N, Bird, N, Bouyé, M, and Rocha, M
Addendum Part two: Action taken by the Conference of (2019) Building capacity for the Paris Agreement’s
the Parties at its twenty-first session, Decision 1/CP.21. enhanced transparency framework: what can we learn
See https://unfccc.int/documents/9097 from countries’ experiences and UNFCCC processes?
  4 United Nations (1992) United Nations Framework World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. See
Convention on Climate Change, Article 4. See www.wri.org/publication/capacity-building-paris-
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf transparency
  5 UNFCCC (2011) ‘The Cancun Agreements: 13 Nordic Council of Ministers (2020) Nordic capacity-
Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working building support to LDCs and SIDS for the
Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the implementation of the transparency framework of
Convention.’ In Report of the Conference of the the Paris Agreement. See https://pub.norden.org/
Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from temanord2020-519/temanord2020-519.pdf
29 November to 10 December 2010 Addendum 14 UNFCCC (2005) Subsidiary Body for Implementation.
Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Status report on the review of third national
Parties at its sixteenth session, Decision 1/CP 16. communications. See https://unfccc.int/resource/
See https://unfccc.int/documents/6527 docs/2005/sbi/eng/inf09.pdf
  6 As note 3, paragraphs 7, 8 and 10. 15 UNFCCC. Seventh National Communications — Annex I.
  7 UNFCCC (2018) ‘Modalities, procedures and guidelines See https://unfccc.int/NC7
for the transparency framework for action and support 16 UNFCCC (2009) Resource guide for preparing the
referred to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement.’ In Report national communications of non-Annex I Parties.
of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting Module 1: The process of national communications from
of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on the third non-Annex I Parties. See https://unfccc.int/resource/
part of its first session, held in Katowice from 2 to 15 docs/publications/09_resource_guide1.pdf
December 2018 Addendum Part two: Action taken by 17 GEF (2020) Report of the Global Environment Facility
the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of to the twenty-sixth session of the conference of the
the Parties to the Paris Agreement, Decision 18/CMA.1. Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
See https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ Climate Change. See www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/
CMA2018_03a02E.pdf documents/GEF_Report_UNFCCC_COP26.pdf
  8 Eggleston, S, Buendia, L, Miwa, K, Ngara, T and 18 GEF (2020) Status of resources approved by the GEF
Tanabe, K (eds.) (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for secretariat for the preparation of Biennial Update Reports
national greenhouse gas inventories (Vol 1). Institute from Parties not included in Annex 1 to the Convention.
for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan. See www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/documents/
See www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/ BUR_Status_Table_UNFCCC_COP26.pdf
  9 UNFCCC (2012) ‘Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention.’ In Report of the Conference of
the Parties on its seventeenth session, held in Durban
from 28 November to 11 December 2011, Decision 2/
CP.17, paragraph 41(a). See https://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2011/cop17/eng/09a01.pdf

28 www.iied.org
IIED Issue paper

www.iied.org 29
From 2024, all countries will face more stringent reporting
requirements on their climate action under the Paris
Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF).
For developing countries — and the Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) in particular — it is a big step up from
existing arrangements. This paper analyses over 20 years of
LDC reports to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change to understand their current capacity
constraints and needs for greenhouse gas inventory
reporting, which becomes mandatory under the ETF. It
provides recommendations to build in-country capacity,
change reporting dynamics and help LDCs shift from
a ‘fly-in, fly-out’ consultant model to a nationally-owned
institutionalised process.

IIED is a policy and action research

organisation. We promote sustainable
development to improve livelihoods
and protect the environments on which
these livelihoods are built. We specialise
in linking local priorities to global
challenges. IIED is based in London and
works in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the
Middle East and the Pacific, with some
of the world’s most vulnerable people.
We work with them to strengthen their
voice in the decision-making arenas that
affect them — from village councils to
international conventions.

International Institute for Environment and Development

235 High Holborn, Holborn, London WC1V 7DN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 3463 7399
www.iied.org

Knowledge
Funded by Products

This report was produced with the generous support of the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). However, the
views expressed do not necessarily represent those of Sida